ARTS SYNTHESIS; ARTS 101 FILLING THROUGH THE GAPS (1)

Learning module 2 taught us that the materials used in
making the art and the various elements and techniques
incorporated in it have an effect on how it is given meaning or
interpreted by the audience. Art has its own language, which is
manifested through how it is drawn or made. Looking at the art
above and focusing on its structure, we can come up with
different interpretations. Some might say that it’s just scribbles
and doesn’t have any meaning, some might say that it
demonstrates the different paths there are in life, which are
symbolized by the different lines used, and some might say that it
shows the dark and the bright journey of an individual because
of the use of bright and dark colors, but it’s not limited to only
these meanings; there can be endless meanings.





It is undoubtedly true that the Gestalt Principles affected how we, viewers, respond to a specific
art, how we make meaning of the visual elements incorporated in it, and how we perceive it. According to
the laws of this principle, we have a tendency to identify patterns in art and make associations, to group
objects that are close to one another into a larger unit, and to relate and group objects that have a
similar shape, which is true and to prove that, let’s take a look at the photo at the upper right side of the
paper. Even though a triangle is not drawn in the picture, we can see a triangle in the picture, and what
made us think that way is that we know for a fact that a triangle has three equal sides and it’s exhibited
in the photo.

But what’s not stated in the module is how extremely crucial the balance between two variables
namely unity and variety is to construct an art that is visually appealing and is easy to be distinguished by
the viewers. Unity is the outcome of various elements collaborating to create a sense of "oneness" and
variety is all about incorporating juxtaposition and contrasting aspects which adds interest to the design.
What a designer or an artist needs to keep in mind is that too much unity can make the art dull and too
much variety will certainly make the art look chaotic. That's why it’s necessary to maintain a balance
between the two to make sure that what they intend for the viewers to see is what they deliver.

Stuart Hall’s Reception Theory is utilized to demonstrate how art is received by what he calls the
“consumers” from the “producers”. His theory illustrates how the consumers or the viewers of art make
various meanings in what the producers produce. One good simple example of this theory is in the
advertisement of the political candidates, let’s say a specific candidate claims in his commercial that he will
bring a positive change in the country once elected, the consumers might have three various ways how
they receive it: some might agree with him and believe him (dominant); some might believe him, but still has
doubts on him (negotiated); some will not believe him at all (opposing). The consumer’s culture is a great
contributing factor to how they receive a message.

But is this the only way to demonstrate how art is received by the audience? No. There are other
ways and one of the ways that I’ve discovered is more simple, it’s Wimsatt and Beardsley’s Intentional
Fallacy where they deem the artist’s intention as irrelevant in how the viewers perceive the art. They
used pudding as an example to illustrate this. They argued that the chef’s intention in making the dessert is
not relevant to whether we enjoy eating it. Art can be interpreted in a lot of different ways because
different individuals have different perceptions and the artist’s interpretation is just one of the many. But,
Knapp and Michaels disagreed with Intentional Fallacy. According to them, the artist’s interpretation is the
only interpretation there is. I disagree with this theory because there is a clear, visible loophole in this. Not
all the artists of the art are still alive, so we cannot ask them what their intention was in making the art
and it’s possible that it was not documented, this argument is stated in Wimsatt and Beardsley’s theory. A
middle ground in this is made by Caroll where he stated that the artist’s intention is relevant in how the
audience responds to the art, in his argument, the viewers don’t disregard the artist’s intention nor regard
it as the only interpretation. This is the same as in the reception of art, its depiction is not only limited to
the Reception Theory, there are numerous ways how we can illustrate it effectively.